A concurrent resolution declaring genocide in Darfur, Sudan.

Mr. President, yesterday I rose to address this body in support of a Senate resolution on a profoundly nonpartisan issue. As President Bush and the United States government continue their fight to protect the American way of life in the war against terrorism, they have also been fighting another battle to protect American ideals and principles--a battle against human trafficking and slavery. Most Americans would be shocked to learn that the institution of slavery--an institution that hundreds of thousands of Americans shed precious blood to destroy--continues to persist today--not just around the world, but hidden in communities across America. This is a new fight against an old evil. It is the most fundamental civil rights issue of our time.

I was pleased to work with my lead Democrat co-sponsor, Senator Schumer, as well as with Senators Graham of South Carolina, Leahy, and Clinton, to introduce and obtain full Senate approval of Senate Resolution 414. That resolution expressed strong support for the Justice Department's recent efforts to combat human trafficking, under the leadership of the Civil Rights Division. The resolution noted that the Justice Department recently held its first-ever National Conference on Human Trafficking in Tampa, Florida, where it announced a new comprehensive model state anti-trafficking law. The resolution encouraged states to consider adopting such laws where they do not currently exist.

Today, I rise in support of a Senate resolution on another profoundly nonpartisan issue--the preservation of our system of government in the wake of a catastrophic terrorist attack. Just as most Americans would be shocked to learn about the incidence of forced labor and sexual servitude in communities across the country, I believe most Americans would be shocked to learn that our laws are profoundly inadequate to ensure continuity of governmental operations in the wake of a catastrophic terrorist attack.

I have spent a great deal of time and energy this past year on the issue of continuity of government. Last September, I chaired two hearings to examine continuity of government problems in the two political branches of government. On September 9, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee to examine continuity problems in the Congress, and on September 16, Senator Lott and I co-chaired a joint hearing of the Senate Rules and Judiciary Committees to look at problems in our system of Presidential succession.

These are not partisan issues. These are imminently nonpartisan issues, and so I was pleased to work on those hearings with my distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle--Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senator Feingold, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights, which I am honored to chair.

In November, I introduced Senate Joint Resolution 23, a proposed constitutional amendment to ensure continuity of Congress. Constitutional legal experts across the political spectrum have recognized that our current laws are inadequate to ensure continuity of Congressional operations in the wake of a catastrophic terrorist attack, and that only a constitutional amendment can ensure that the American people will never have to suffer under martial law.

The constitutional amendment I introduced implements the recommendations of the bipartisan blue ribbon Continuity of Government Commission, sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution. That commission is led by two of our nation's truly most distinguished American statesmen--its honorary co-chairmen, former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford--as well as by its two distinguished co-chairmen, former Senator Alan Simpson and former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler. The commission is comprised of former high- ranking government officials of both parties, and ably staffed by Norman Ornstein, John Fortier, and Thomas Mann.

I know that there are sharp divisions in the House over what kinds of continuity measures to adopt--whether

emergency interim appointments are appropriate and necessary, or if expedited special elections alone are sufficient. It is important to recognize that my amendment takes no position in that debate. My amendment would not compel either chamber of Congress to adopt any particular methodology for redressing continuity problems. It would simply empower Congress to adopt legislation to guarantee continuity of Congressional operations--power that Congress does not currently possess. It is modeled after Article II of the Constitution, which empowers Congress to adopt legislation to provide for continuity of the Presidency.

On January 27 of this year, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee so that legal experts could examine the need for Senate Joint Resolution 23. And on that same day, I introduced implementing legislation (S. 2031), entitled the Continuity of the Senate Act of 2004. Continuity problems affect both the House and the Senate. Indeed, the Senate arguably faces the most dire problem of all--if a majority of Senators are incapacitated, Congress could be disabled for as long as four years, the amount of time it takes to elect a new majority of Senators. The Continuity of the Senate Act of 2004 would implement the constitutional amendment proposed by Senate Joint Resolution 23. It would simply empower each state to adopt continuity measures for their senators in case of incapacity--following the model of the 17th Amendment with respect to Senate vacancies. I am pleased that Senators Dodd and Lott agreed to serve as original co- sponsors of this legislation. After all, they are the ranking Democrat and Republican, respectively, on the Senate Rules Committee--the committee that would have jurisdiction to consider the Continuity of the Senate Act, in the event that the constitutional amendment I have proposed is approved by two-thirds of the Congress and three-fourths of the states.

On May 13, I convened a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights--the subcommittee that possesses jurisdiction over constitutional amendments. I am pleased that the subcommittee approved Senate Joint Resolution 23 on a bipartisan vote. I am particularly pleased that the resolution was supported by my distinguished colleague, the subcommittee's ranking Democrat, Senator Feingold. I know from working with him these past several months that he is no fan of constitutional amendments. And of course, everyone in this chamber agrees that the Constitution should not be amended casually. Yet he recognized--as have constitutional legal experts across the political spectrum--that the only way to ensure continuity of Congressional operations is a constitutional amendment. I look forward to working with Senator Hatch, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in coming weeks and months so that the full committee can consider the merits of, and the need for, Senate Joint Resolution 23.

Of course, Congress is not the only institution that faces serious problems of continuity of operations. Our laws are also inadequate with respect to Presidential succession. Article II of the Constitution gives Congress the power to enact laws to address Presidential succession--just as my proposed constitutional amendment would give Congress such power with respect to continuity of Congress. Yet legal experts across the political spectrum have written that the current Presidential succession statute is unconstitutional and unworkable.

Accordingly, I introduced legislation in February, right before President's Day, to reform the Presidential succession statute (S. 2073). That same day, I also introduced a Senate resolution (S. Con. Res. 89) to establish a protocol for ensuring proper transition between an outgoing President and a newly elected President. Both measures were cosponsored by Senator Lott, the chairman of the Rules Committee, which exercises jurisdiction over such matters.

I am pleased to introduce a more robust version of that same resolution today for the Senate's consideration, in the form of a Senate resolution that requires the consent of only this body. It is an important step to ensuring that, no matter what, at a minimum, terrorists will never be able to determine, by launching a terrorist strike, which party controls the White House.

Imagine if you will that it is January 20, the inauguration date for a new incoming President. The sun is shining, and the American people are watching. The new President and Vice President sit on the center platform just steps away from the Capitol Rotunda, joined by American and foreign dignitaries. Leaders of both Houses of Congress sit nearby as well. It is a beautiful day--but as national security and continuity of government experts have long recognized, it is also a window of vulnerability. If terrorists launched a successful strike on Inauguration Day, it could wipe out not only our new President, but also the first three people who are in the line of Presidential succession under our current Presidential succession statute--the Vice President, the Speaker of the House, and the President pro tempore of the Senate.

What happens next?

Well, imagine that the election of the prior year had resulted in a change of political party control of the White House. During previous Presidential transition periods, a new incoming President has had to serve with Cabinet members from the prior administration--including sub-Cabinet officials from the prior administration acting as Cabinet members--for at least some period of time. That means that, in the event of a successful inaugural day attack, the official who could rise to become Acting President, perhaps serving for four full years, could very well be a member of the outgoing administration--indeed, a member of the political party that the American people expelled from office at the most recent election.

The resolution I introduce today would help prevent this from happening. As the resolution acknowledges, members of the Senate, regardless of political party affiliation, agree that the American people deserve a Government that is failsafe and foolproof. We agree that terrorists should never have the ability to disrupt the operations of the Government. We agree that continuity of governmental operations in the wake of a catastrophic terrorist attack remains a pressing issue of national importance before the United States Congress. And we agree that, at a minimum, terrorists should never have the ability, by launching a terrorist attack, to change the political party that is in control of the Government--a principle that applies regardless of which party is in power.

An incoming President, of course, cannot exercise the constitutional powers of the President, in order to ensure a smooth transition of Government, until noon on the 20th day of January, pursuant to the terms of the Twentieth Amendment of the Constitution. Accordingly, cooperation between the incoming and the outgoing President is the only way to ensure a smooth transition of government.

Whenever control of the White House shall change from one political party to another, the outgoing President and the incoming President should work together, and with the Senate to the extent deemed appropriate by the Senate, to ensure a smooth transition of executive power, in the interest of the American people. Accordingly, the resolution establishes a non-binding protocol--a protocol with three parts.

First, the resolution states that an outgoing President should consider submitting the nominations of individuals to the Senate who are selected by the President-elect for offices that fall within the line of succession. Under the current Presidential succession statute (3 U.S.C. Sec. 19), that means the members of the Cabinet, defined as the heads of the statutory executive departments (5 U.S.C. Sec. 101).

Second, the resolution provides that the Senate should consider conducting confirmation proceedings and votes on Cabinet nominations, to the extent deemed appropriate by the Senate, between January 3 and January 20 before the Inauguration. Of course, nothing in the resolution purports to alter the constitutional powers of either the President or the Senate, and indeed, nothing in this resolution could constitutionally do so.

And third, the resolution encourages the outgoing President to consider agreeing to sign and deliver commissions for all approved nominations on January 20 before the Inauguration--all to ensure continuity of government.

I am pleased that this resolution has received such strong support amongst experts in the fields of continuity of government and constitutional law. This is a truly nonpartisan effort, so I am particularly pleased that the resolution is so enthusiastically supported by constitutional legal experts such as Walter Dellinger, Cass Sunstein, Laurence Tribe, Michael Gerhardt, and Howard Wasserman. Rather than repeat their words here, I will simply ask unanimous consent that their letters be included in the Congressional Record at the close of my remarks.

Throughout history, Congress has acted consistently and in a bipartisan fashion to encourage measures to ensure the smooth transition of Executive power from one President to another. I think, for example, of the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, and its subsequent amendments. In that Act, Congress concluded that ``[t]he national interest requires'' that ``the orderly transfer of the executive power in connection with the expiration of the term of office of a President and the inauguration of a new President . . . be accomplished so as to assure continuity in the faithful execution of the laws and in the conduct of the affairs of the Federal Government, both domestic and foreign.'' Congress further concluded that ``[a]ny disruption occasioned by the transfer of the executive power could produce results detrimental to the safety and well-being of the United States and its people.'' Accordingly, Congress expressed its intent ``that appropriate actions be authorized and taken to avoid or minimize any disruption'' and ``that all officers of the Government so conduct the affairs of the Government for which they exercise responsibility and authority as (1) to be mindful of problems occasioned by transitions in the office of President, (2) to take appropriate lawful steps to avoid or minimize disruptions that might be occasioned by the transfer of the executive power, and (3) otherwise to promote orderly transitions in the office of President.''

Close cooperation between an incoming President and an outgoing President is the only way to ensure a smooth transition of government. So this evening, just days away from the first of our nation's two great political conventions, I am pleased to introduce a resolution to ensure continuity of government during a unique window of vulnerability--the Presidential inaugural period. And I look forward to further debate and discussion on other legislation to ensure the continuity of our national government.

Mr. President, today the Senate is taking historic action, stating clearly that the atrocities occurring in Darfur are genocide, reminding the world of its obligations under the Genocide Convention, and calling on the administration to lead an international effort to stop the genocide. This resolution, which I introduced with my colleague, Sam Brownback, has broad, bipartisan support, and its unanimous approval by the U.S. Senate sends a powerful message--that this body will not remain silent as genocide occurs.

The situation remains, as U.N. officials have called it, ``the world's worst humanitarian catastrophe.'' At least 30,000 have been killed. Mr. President, 1.2 million have been violently displaced from their villages, of whom 200,000 have fled to Chad. The potential death toll is horrifying. Andrew Natsios, Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, has predicted that 300,000 will die this year, even in an ``optimistic'' scenario in which humanitarian assistance is provided, and that up to one million are at risk.

This disaster is the result of the deliberate policies of the Government of Sudan and the ``janjaweed'' militias under its control. Earlier this week, Human Rights Watch reported how Sudanese government documents themselves prove Khartoum's complicity. Those documents describe, in plain terms, the government's military support for the militias--its, quote ``loyalist tribes''--and its policy of tolerating the abuse of civilians by the militias.

What has been the result? Janjaweed militias, along with Sudanese forces, have engaged in systematic attacks against civilians in Darfur. As recently confirmed by U.S. Government satellite photographs, villages have been burnt to the ground. Livestock and food stock have been destroyed, and water sources poisoned. Humanitarian assistance has been denied. Militias have murdered civilians and abducted children.

Just this week, on Monday, Amnesty International issued a report describing how rape has been used as a weapon of war in Darfur. Amnesty described how women and girls as young as 8 have been raped and abducted, often with the involvement or acquiescence of Sudanese authorities. Janjaweed militia have raped women in public, in front of their families, with the intent of adding humiliation to the violence. Amnesty reports gang rapes, rapes of pregnant women, and torture and killings in the context of sexual violence. Darfurian women, who are often reluctant to talk about these experiences, nonetheless described how they were abducted and held captive during the day, when militia members were looting villages, so that they could be raped at night. Amnesty reported how rapes have occurred during attacks on villages, during the flight of civilians, and in the camps, all with total impunity. Not a single member of the janjaweed or the Sudanese armed forces have been charged with committing rape or abducting civilians.

In addition to stopping this violence, we must act now to prevent death from starvation and disease. Hundreds of thousands of civilians are currently crowded into camps, where conditions are simply stated, horrendous. Humanitarian organizations now estimate that nearly half of the internationally displaced civilians in Darfur have inadequate food and shelter, that 61 percent lack sufficient water, and that 87 percent lack adequate sanitation. Many of the camps are off limits to international relief workers, and much of the countryside is inaccessible as well.

The rains are adding to the obstacles presented to the humanitarian organizations. So, too, is the lack of security created by the militias and Sudanese forces. The result may be a complete break in the food pipeline, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands. As U.N. Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egelan said last week, ``We are now in this moment of truth, which will last for some weeks.''

Along with my colleague, Senator Brownback, I have introduced a resolution declaring the situation in Darfur to be genocide. Why is this so? To begin with, it is undisputed that the murders, rapes, abductions of children, displacements and denial of humanitarian assistance have been directed at particular ethnic groups, specifically the ethnically African groups--the Fur, Zagahwa, and Massalit. Both the U.S. and the U.N. have stated that ``ethnic cleansing'' is occurring. The U.S. Ambassador for War Crimes, Pierre-Richard Prosper, has said that there are ``indicators of genocide.''

What does the Genocide Convention of 1948 state? It defines genocide as killing, causing serious bodily harm, and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction-- all of which have occurred in Darfur--committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national ethnical, racial or religious group. The Convention does not require that a certain number have died before it is genocide, only that the acts are occurring.

This declaration is important because of our obligation--and that of the world--to stop genocide before it is too late. After all, the full name of the Genocide Convention is the ``Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.'' Article I of the Convention states that the contracting parties ``undertake to prevent and punish'' genocide. The United States and every other permanent member of the U.N. Security Council is a party to the Genocide Convention.

The Genocide Convention arose out of the horror of the Holocaust, in a moment of history in which the world vowed never again to permit this evil. But the world has spoken much more recently. In late January 2004, 55 governments participated in the Stockholm International Forum, ``Preventing Genocide; Threats and Responsibilities.'' Those governments, which included the U.S., the U.K., France and Russia, declared, quote:

The Holocaust . . . challenged the foundations of human

civilization . . . We are committed to shouldering our

responsibility to protect groups identified as potential

victims of genocide, mass murder or ethnic cleansing, drawing

upon the range of tools at our disposal to prevent such

atrocities in accordance with international law and fully

upholding the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of

the Crime of Genocide.

This was this January. What do these words mean without action? More words, mere condemnations are not sufficient. Nor is humanitarian assistance possible without real intervention. The lack of food, water and sanitation have reached critical levels. But the problem is caused, and compounded, by the lack of security. As Jan Egelan said last week, quote ``The number one problem now is lack of security. Our trucks are looted, our humanitarian workers are threatened and attacked.''

We must find ways to stop this catastrophe. This resolution calls on the President to lead an international effort to stop this genocide. In my view,

to be effective, we must take whatever actions are necessary, including armed intervention, to save the hundreds of thousands of lives that are at stake. I have called for a U.N.-authorized multinational force, as well as the provision of assistance to the African Union's critically important, but thus far, inadequate mission.

In the end, the only thing that will matter is whether we have saved these lives, whether we have done whatever it takes to stop this genocide. This resolution is a powerful statement. But it must also serve as an impetus to the administration and to the rest of the world to act. Morally and legally, we have no other option.

Mr. President, I rise today to submit a Senate concurrent resolution which affirms the support of Congress for preserving the image of Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill. Alexander Hamilton is a Founding Father of our Nation. He was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Revolutionary War, a voice in the Continental

Congress, and a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. He authored more than 50 of the 85 ``Federalist Papers.'' He organized the Revenue Marines, known today as the Coast Guard, and played a crucial role in the creation of the U.S. Navy. And Alexander Hamilton is the creator of one of America's first industrial and manufacturing centers, in Paterson, NJ.

Alexander Hamilton was also America's first Secretary of the Treasury and the founder of the first United States Bank. He is responsible for the financial system that our country maintains today. He created the first bank, the first tax system, the first budget, and a strong currency. He had a vision for establishing the economic viability of our fledgling country based on banking, investment, manufacturing, industry, and commerce. We are an economic superpower and a model for the rest of the world in large part because of Alexander Hamilton.

When we look to the Founding Fathers who played significant roles in the formation of America, we see that among them, George Washington has a monument in our Nation's Capital, and his image is on the $1 bill and the quarter deservedly so. Thomas Jefferson also has an impressive memorial in Washington, the main building of the Library of Congress is named after him, and his image is on the $2 bill and the nickel--again, deservedly so. Alexander Hamilton's image is on the $10 bill--and it should remain on the $10 bill. There is perhaps no other American more responsible for the fact that we have a $10 bill.

Of course, Washington and Jefferson were our first and third Presidents. Many of our other Presidents have been or will be appropriately memorialized in some fashion. For instance, our 40th President, Ronald Reagan, has had Washington National Airport and the second largest Federal building in the country, only the Pentagon is bigger, named after him. The headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency at Langley, VA, has been named after our 41st President, George H. W. Bush. One of the four office buildings for the U.S. House of Representatives has been named after our 38th President, Gerald Ford. And the Old Executive Office Building--right next to the White House-- has been named after our 34th President, Dwight Eisenhower.

We stand in a Senate Chamber steeped in history; in a country quite conscious and proud of its birth. We revere those individuals such as Washington, Jefferson, and Hamilton who were present at the creation of our great Nation and helped to establish the democracy we enjoy as a birthright. It is our duty to uphold their legacy and preserve their image. Alexander Hamilton played an instrumental role in our triumph in the Revolutionary War, the birth of our democracy, and the establishment of our financial system. His image must, at the very least, remain on the $10 bill. There have been many Presidents, and there will be many more. But there will be no more Founding Fathers.

Mr. President, we are about to take up a number of matters that are in a position to be passed by unanimous consent. One of those includes a concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 133, on Sudan. It is a clear statement from the Senate that what is occurring in Sudan is genocide. Many of us have felt the need to express ourselves on this important matter prior to the time we leave for recess.

I thank the distinguished majority leader and a number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

It is an important statement to be made. The administration needs to hear it, the international community needs to hear it, and certainly the Sudanese Government, which tolerates if not assists in genocide, needs to hear it.

I note, also, this concurrent resolution would not have been possible without the tireless effort of the Congressional Black Caucus. I especially want to note the efforts of Congressman Don Payne, Congressman John Conyers, and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. Their tireless efforts for human rights ought to be recognized tonight. I congratulate them and I thank them for their work. I am very proud to be associated with that effort and with this resolution tonight.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 133, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.